Author Topic: ME 262 (Read 2502 times)

jjorgensen · « **on:** June 06, 2008, 05:54:48 PM »

I ordered the Flying Models plans for the Vornholt/Sheeks ME 262. The plans are bare bones to say the least. No control info, no center of gravity, no top view of the fusalage, etc. I still plan to build it but would like to obtain the construction article. (I didn't realize I could have ordered it with the plans) Dennis Adamisin was kind enough to send me the first two pages of the article that appeared in the March 67 magazine but he did not have the balance of the article that had the construction information. Does anyone have the rest of the article that would be willing to send me a copy? Any help or suggestions on this model will be greatly appreciated.

Just One-eye · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2008, 08:39:32 PM »

While I don't think Jack is computer-addicted, and doesn't even lurk in any forums, he is readily accessible by phone or by mail, and is one of the nicest, most pleasant guys I've met. I'm almost sure that he could offer help if you called or wrote. He belongs to PAMPA, or was a long-time member, so he should be in several of the PAMPA member directories (sorry, I can't put my hands on any of those I've had, but surely someone here is better organized in that regard than I am!)

jjorgensen · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2008, 04:50:50 PM »

It is the March 1967 issue

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2008, 03:20:24 PM »

May I suggest to everyone to buy Tom Wilk's CD on OTS and Classic planes. He ships right away, and it is a great source of in.

The Pampa OTS and Classic books are also a must, but don't know if they are again available.

Luke Spreadborough · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2008, 09:04:58 PM »

I would like to second what Tom Niebuhr said, Tom Wilk's CD's are truly worth the effort and Tom is pleasant to deal with. I no longer collect model magazines, the CDs amply cover what I'm looking for.

One of the reasons why I always loved Jack Sheeks plans is the lack of info, plenty of room for ad libbing.

EddyR · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2008, 06:42:52 AM »

Here is what Jack will say " Make the nose wide enough to fit the motor and tank and pull the tail end together an glue it". His articles are very short and do not give a glue part A to part B. Many of his articles start by saying "I needed a plane for a contest in three weeks so I built this plane". Jack is a great guy and fun to talk to but don"t look for building details in his articles.
Ed

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2008, 11:23:37 AM »

Jack has been a big help to me building the "Sea Vixen". His article were short, but he has an amazing memory of the details of each of his airplanes. He will help with any questions. He is in the Pampa directory.

jjorgensen · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2008, 03:29:20 PM »

I sent an email to Jack and got a reply from him today. He says he did not design the Me-262, Vornholt did. He did give me a number for Mr. Vornholt. Jack says he only helped on it a little bit. I guess it will not qualify for the Sheeks event.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2008, 10:13:54 PM »

I noticed that Stunt Hanger now has a search function...don't think it did before. Anyway, I managed to convince it to give me the link below.

According to this previous thread, something doesn't add up. I'd call Jack and Tom N. and get it sorted out, but I hope you'll build the 262! Cool plane!

Steve

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=7801.msg66403#msg66403

jjorgensen · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2008, 10:56:34 AM »

I intend to still build it. I sent an email to Jim Vornholt and got a reply. He is going to dig out the original article to refresh his memory and then get back to me about the specifics not covered on the plans. He indicated two versions were built, one with a bubble canopy.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2008, 11:41:26 PM »

Jack is always concerned about proper credit for airplanes. In this case, Jack did give aide to Jim Vornholt. That is the reason that we have included this airplane.

Bill Little · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2008, 09:46:54 AM »

Quote from: jjorgensen on August 05, 2008, 10:56:34 AM

I intend to still build it. I sent an email to Jim Vornholt and got a reply. He is going to dig out the original article to refresh his memory and then get back to me about the specifics not covered on the plans. He indicated two versions were built, one with a bubble canopy.

When I get around to building mine, I will use the bubble canopy and not the two place trainer version!

Mongo

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2008, 09:41:37 AM »

It would be nice to know about the second bubble version.

Air Ministry . · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2008, 11:00:13 PM »

Wheres all these 'progess' pictures ? Chaps.

jjorgensen · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:09:13 PM »

I will try to post a the photo that Jim Vornholt sent me of the bubble canopy version

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:33:46 PM »

Jim, Thanks so much for posting the bubble version picture. Were you able to get anymore information on it? Thanks Again, Mike

jjorgensen · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:58:52 PM »

Mr. Vornholt said the following when he sent the photo - Attached is a photo of the second ME-262 which shows the lead-out wires in the wing like the plan shows and it was a bubble canopy version which looked much better then the model in the magazine. The C.G. should be around where the I-beam enters the fuselage. The Vertical Fin was one piece but the it set on the horizontal stabilizer. The stabilizer set on two separate pieces of balsa, this was to allow the control horn room to move. This worked much better and if I recall it flew very well right up until I ran it into the concrete

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2008, 12:58:26 PM »

Did Jim say if plans were ever drawn up for the bubble version or if he just improvised then from the two seat version? Thanks, Mike

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2008, 04:04:30 PM »

The bubble version picture is great looking. I'm surprise that it wasn't mentioned in the orginal article.

jjorgensen · « **Reply #19 on:** October 17, 2008, 08:24:33 AM »

Jim did not say whether plans existed for the bubble top version but I don't think it would be difficult to modify from the two seat version. That is what I intend to do. The biggest difference I see in the two photos is the location of the leadouts. The bubble top version comports with the plans on where they exit the wing.

Luke Spreadborough · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2008, 10:10:12 AM »

Point of interest.................the picture of the single seater (thanks for that, BTW) shows the tailplane mount to be much wider than the fin, whereas the plan from Carstens shows this the same width as the fin, i.e 1/4 inch. I'm guessing the elevator linkage is hidden inside the fuselage. Mine followed the 2 seater plans and was external.

Luke S.

Edit: Oops, I didn't read Jim's post 18 which mentions that. I was too busy looking at the picture.

I now seriously want to build another one .

Michael Boucher · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2008, 02:31:08 PM »

How did you like your model Luke? Are you planning on the bubble version or two seater this time around?

Luke Spreadborough · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2008, 04:09:43 PM »

To be honest Michael I would like to build one of each, I'm kind of nostalgic for the twin seat nightfighter (this time with a real canopy) but the single seater is also appealing. BTW, both versions were captured by the US and there are some interesting 262 schemes with stars and bars.

When I built mine I completely misunderstood the I-beam wing (this was my first), I thought the wing was made in a top half and a bottom half and clamped over the I-beam which was mounted in the fuselage. As crazy as it sounds this was how I built it and it worked. Carefully slid each spar stub into the fuselage and joined them together with some soft block for reinforcement. Straight as a die and I was quite impressed with these I-beamers. I found out later how an I-beam wing is actually built. A lot easier than my method.

Luke Spreadborough · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2008, 09:02:30 AM »

Quote

Wheres all these 'progess' pictures ? Chaps

Ahoy Matthew, I still have your notes and was perusing them again last night.

When I finally get around to starting mine you'll see it. A Kiwi version is also on the cards, nudge nudge, wink wink.